Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
Damn you are dumb. I'll type really slow so maybe you will get it this time. I KNOW THERE ARE ALREADY OTHER PIPELINES!! THOSE ARE NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION!!! Hell, you have posted nothing of note anyway, so you're nothing but a waste of time anyway.Recent production increases, and reduction in demand has lowered the price so much till it's just barely feasible to even build the northern line that you insist is already built. We don't need it.Let's start here.
Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.
It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL.
This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent.
It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.
- See more at: Myths addressed Exports Jobs Economic benefits and more Keystone XL Pipeline
This is such utter bullshit. TransCanada has the resources to build the XL which would transport not only canuck crude but Bakken crude.
They have the money. They have the will. They have the way.
It's just a freaking pipeline extension.
You don't believe Keystone is already built? '
Check out reality. And Montana and North Dakota really benefit from this extension.
Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
You import from Venezuela with heavy crude as well. California actually has fields with heavier than the oil sands.
Pick your poison. It's coming via pipeline rail and crude enviro whacko.
Get back to me when you start protesting the delivery of Canuck crude by Warren Buffet's railroad.
Or shut the fuck up.
Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
Simply asking for recourse to the coercive use of force of the State over voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade via eminent domain, is an (economic) environmental reason to be concerned.
In any case, it is more about the right only having problems with social spending on the least wealthy, but no amount of socialism can be too much, to bailout the wealthiest capitalists, even under our republican form of government--from that political point of view.
From another perspective and point of view and alternative, it is about promoting the general of the United States over the private interests of the private sector. Infrastructure should include high speed mass transportation that can reduce those costs to the private sector while preserving our environmental greenspace.
First & foremost ...Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
You import from Venezuela with heavy crude as well. California actually has fields with heavier than the oil sands.
Pick your poison. It's coming via pipeline rail and crude enviro whacko.
Get back to me when you start protesting the delivery of Canuck crude by Warren Buffet's railroad.
Or shut the fuck up.
Damn you are dumb. I'll type really slow so maybe you will get it this time. I KNOW THERE ARE ALREADY OTHER PIPELINES!! THOSE ARE NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION!!! Hell, you have posted nothing of note anyway, so you're nothing but a waste of time anyway.Recent production increases, and reduction in demand has lowered the price so much till it's just barely feasible to even build the northern line that you insist is already built. We don't need it.Let's start here.
Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.
It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL.
This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent.
It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.
- See more at: Myths addressed Exports Jobs Economic benefits and more Keystone XL Pipeline
This is such utter bullshit. TransCanada has the resources to build the XL which would transport not only canuck crude but Bakken crude.
They have the money. They have the will. They have the way.
It's just a freaking pipeline extension.
You don't believe Keystone is already built? '
Check out reality. And Montana and North Dakota really benefit from this extension.
set to the Elephant man. 
I say build it. And if it leaks, the company pays a hefty fine. Anyone who disagrees is anti American. I can be built safely and be environmentally safe as well. I would assume any company building it would spend a lot of extra funds not needed to ensure the safety. The jobs however will be temporary. And not one drop of this oil should EVER be sold to the highest bidder. That should be illegal. That is our oil it should ALL stay here. If it doesn't, shut the company down.
First & foremost ...Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
You import from Venezuela with heavy crude as well. California actually has fields with heavier than the oil sands.
Pick your poison. It's coming via pipeline rail and crude enviro whacko.
Get back to me when you start protesting the delivery of Canuck crude by Warren Buffet's railroad.
Or shut the fuck up.
Secondly, we would not be transporting oil by rail if it were up to me.
And lastly, Keystone offers only about 50 permanent jobs and nominal benefits to the U.S. It's not worth the mess tar sands oil spills produce.
It's not that the jobs are shit jobs, it's what they'd be building that is shit. There is not enough benefit from the pipeline can justify 50 permanent jobs. We don't need the pipeline, we don't get the oil and the mess it's going to create is not worth it. I'm praying Obama vetoes it. We have refineries in Northwest Washington state. Let Canada build their pipeline through Canada to there. Let Canada deal with the mess we know that pipeline is going to make.First & foremost ...Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
You import from Venezuela with heavy crude as well. California actually has fields with heavier than the oil sands.
Pick your poison. It's coming via pipeline rail and crude enviro whacko.
Get back to me when you start protesting the delivery of Canuck crude by Warren Buffet's railroad.
Or shut the fuck up.
Secondly, we would not be transporting oil by rail if it were up to me.
And lastly, Keystone offers only about 50 permanent jobs and nominal benefits to the U.S. It's not worth the mess tar sands oil spills produce.
Faun. Obviously you have not been in these threads for a bit.
The most lamo of all lamo arguments against the XL is the idiocy of permanent jobs versus those "temporary jobs"
Name me the permanent construction jobs. I can name you one because my father in law was an iron worker who became a supervisor at NASA over many a year. Built the VAB.
But the construction jobs have been wicked man for all the union skilled labor for the Keystone.
Why oh why are these temporary jobs now shit on the planet? Construction jobs by their very nature are temporary unless you can get a gig like Joe.
My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.
The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.
I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.
They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?
Most persons are able to drive on the Interstates. Will I be able to make use of the pipelines?
Yea, the gas in your tank would cost half of what it used to. THAT would benefit everyone.
And no, putting a road through the farmers field down the street benefits locals only. There is no benefit to the man living on 124 Main street in San Francisco. So it does NOT benefit the entire nation.
My problem with the Keystone pipeline has less to do with the environment, and much more to do with the fact that they're stealing private land via eminent domain to build it on.
The fact that the people who will have the pipeline running through their backyards are opposed to it is enough reason for me to oppose it.
I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile your claims of "property rights" with your support of government-enforced theft of private property.
They did it for the interstate system. Where were you crying in your grits for those people? Or is it only evil if its an oil pipeline?
Most persons are able to drive on the Interstates. Will I be able to make use of the pipelines?
Yea, the gas in your tank would cost half of what it used to. THAT would benefit everyone.
And no, putting a road through the farmers field down the street benefits locals only. There is no benefit to the man living on 124 Main street in San Francisco. So it does NOT benefit the entire nation.
FALSE
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.
Cornell University | ILR School
It's not that the jobs are shit jobs, it's what they'd be building that is shit. There is not enough benefit from the pipeline can justify 50 permanent jobs. We don't need the pipeline, we don't get the oil and the mess it's going to create is not worth it. I'm praying Obama vetoes it. We have refineries in Northwest Washington state. Let Canada build their pipeline through Canada to there. Let Canada deal with the mess we know that pipeline is going to make.First & foremost ...Because tar sands oil spills are particularly nasty...Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
tar sands oil spills - Google Search
... and TransCanada estimates two spills every year.
You import from Venezuela with heavy crude as well. California actually has fields with heavier than the oil sands.
Pick your poison. It's coming via pipeline rail and crude enviro whacko.
Get back to me when you start protesting the delivery of Canuck crude by Warren Buffet's railroad.
Or shut the fuck up.
Secondly, we would not be transporting oil by rail if it were up to me.
And lastly, Keystone offers only about 50 permanent jobs and nominal benefits to the U.S. It's not worth the mess tar sands oil spills produce.
Faun. Obviously you have not been in these threads for a bit.
The most lamo of all lamo arguments against the XL is the idiocy of permanent jobs versus those "temporary jobs"
Name me the permanent construction jobs. I can name you one because my father in law was an iron worker who became a supervisor at NASA over many a year. Built the VAB.
But the construction jobs have been wicked man for all the union skilled labor for the Keystone.
Why oh why are these temporary jobs now shit on the planet? Construction jobs by their very nature are temporary unless you can get a gig like Joe.
Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.
You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.
Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.
Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.
Oh high and mighty Camp. Who are you to determine what is needed and not needed for your refineries?
I've never said drastically needed. Not little old moi.
Needed by Montana and North Dakota most certainly. They would tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine Camp because the XL is committed to pick up crude from their Bakken fields to get to refineries.
Just as the other Keystone picks up crude from other domestic producers.
It"s just a fucking pipeline. Just another mode of transportation. Get a grip.
The hypocrisy over the XL is astounding. No one made a peep over the Keystone being finished while the debate has raged on over the XL and no one has made a peep over the Alberta Clipper NOR the Southern Lights pipeline being built while this idiocy over the XL continues.
It's a big dog and mother trucking dog pony show by the left. It's all bullshit.
We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.
You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.
Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.
Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.
Oh high and mighty Camp. Who are you to determine what is needed and not needed for your refineries?
I've never said drastically needed. Not little old moi.
Needed by Montana and North Dakota most certainly. They would tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine Camp because the XL is committed to pick up crude from their Bakken fields to get to refineries.
Just as the other Keystone picks up crude from other domestic producers.
It"s just a fucking pipeline. Just another mode of transportation. Get a grip.
The hypocrisy over the XL is astounding. No one made a peep over the Keystone being finished while the debate has raged on over the XL and no one has made a peep over the Alberta Clipper NOR the Southern Lights pipeline being built while this idiocy over the XL continues.
It's a big dog and mother trucking dog pony show by the left. It's all bullshit.
You are a lying sack of shit.
We are doing just fine without that particular pipeline. It won't make a significant difference in the amount of oil we can access. Proponents like you try to make it sound like this particular stretch of pipeline is drastically needed. It isn't. As you have pointed out, we are getting the oil anyhow. This is just a battle between giant business interest about who gets to make the profits from transporting it.All along the system there are people benefiting from the ability to commute to work. If the guy i San Francisco works for an agriculture company the interstate benefits his employment or business by being able to ship his product across the country.Yes, interstates NEAR HIS HOME would benefit him. Not the one across the country, yet the one across the country had to be developed on land owned by others and taken by force.
You don't get the point. It's over your head. Try to find it on radar because there is no hope of you finding it with the naked eye.
There is no better example for the need for eminent domain than roads and utility right of ways. There is no worse example than private profit making business interest.
Well Comrade Camp. Do you need crude as a nation? Why yes, yes you do. You use more than you produce so you must import crude. It has to get to market.
Pipelines are the most efficient way to do so. It's a no brainer that you have to build the infrastructure to get the crude to the refineries. Canadian and domestic. They need to be built not solely for profit but to transport a valuable raw material so it can be processed and refined.
Oh high and mighty Camp. Who are you to determine what is needed and not needed for your refineries?
I've never said drastically needed. Not little old moi.
Needed by Montana and North Dakota most certainly. They would tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine Camp because the XL is committed to pick up crude from their Bakken fields to get to refineries.
Just as the other Keystone picks up crude from other domestic producers.
It"s just a fucking pipeline. Just another mode of transportation. Get a grip.
The hypocrisy over the XL is astounding. No one made a peep over the Keystone being finished while the debate has raged on over the XL and no one has made a peep over the Alberta Clipper NOR the Southern Lights pipeline being built while this idiocy over the XL continues.
It's a big dog and mother trucking dog pony show by the left. It's all bullshit.
You are a lying sack of shit.
A) Most of the supposedly "smart" environmentalists don't seem to be aware of these 185,000 miles of pipeline already criss-crossing the USA!Liberals worry about the environment being harmed by this pipeline, and won't even take the State Department's word that the project would have little to no impact on the environment. Well, let me see if I can't ram some reality through some really thick heads.
This is from the final impact report which was issued in January 2014
On March 11, 2010, the NEB issued its Reasons for Decision granting Keystone’s application. The NEB’s Reasons for Decision included an Environmental Screening Report (ESR) that was prepared to meet the requirements of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Canadian portion of the proposed pipeline. The ESR concluded that implementation of the proposed pipeline in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects with incorporation of Keystone’s proposed measures to avoid or minimize impacts and with Keystone’s acceptance of the NEB’s regulatory requirements and recommended conditions attached to the ESR (see also Section 4.15.4.1, Canadian National Energy Board Environmental Analysis of the Proposed Project, for a listing of NEB’s conditions).
Chapter 1, Section 7, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE KEYSTONE 1.7
XL PROJECT, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
And this is Chapter 4, Section 16, or a list of all the potential impacts of the project...and what I see reading through it. is that there are negligible or limited impacts to the surrounding environment:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221192.pdf
Given these things, it would be reasonable to assume that the same circumstances would be true here in the United States. So, what other rationales are there for stopping this project? In the time it has taken to block this project, (over 5 years) the pipeline could already be close to completion.
Apparently there are no sly remarks, personal insults, ifs, ands, or buts from the eco-liberal crowd. Color me green.
